[ad_1]
While initially very short movies could be viewed through an array of devices like the Kinetoscope, the traditional method of projecting movies on some kind of screen in a darkened room was established as early as the 1890s. Since then, this method of publicly showing movies hasn’t changed terribly, save for advancements in the quality of sound and images that motion pictures can be presented. It’s not hard to see why, since this system is quite effective at delivering a crisp image that tons of people can view simultaneously. Both the art being projected and the audience members benefit from this mode of viewing. No wonder it’s stuck around from the days of Charlie Chaplin to the modern era of John Wick: Chapter 4. Still, that doesn’t mean there haven’t been attempts to shake up this style of viewing movies with fads.
Over the years, theaters have often incorporated a variety of fads meant to enhance the “immersiveness” of the theatrical experience and also help theatrical films compete with new forms of escapist entertainment. While certain enhancements to big-screen moviegoing (namely IMAX) have stuck around, most of these attempts to level up movie theater experiences have vanished into obscurity. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, a permanently relevant axiom that these fads forgot all about.
Cinerama Tried to Change the Game in the 1950s
While there were flourishes and experiments done with how to project films or extra ways to spice up theatrical viewing in the first few decades of the 20th century, the context of the era makes it trickier to consider them fads in the same way as later adjustments to theatrical exhibition. With sound and color both getting introduced in this era and eventually sticking around as permanent fixtures of cinematic storytelling, it’s clear film was still a work in progress for these initial decades of the 1900s. With so much uncertainty looming over every aspect of the artform, it feels unfair to lump initial attempts to figure out the limits of this medium with later cynical forays into D-Box and other accentuations to big-screen moviegoing.
By the 1950s, things had stabilized a bit for theaters. It was clear what was going to be permanently part of theatrical exhibition and what wouldn’t be. This is where some of the wonkier and short-lived attempts at juicing up the theatrical experience came from. This is also the era where formidable competition arrived to challenge movie theaters in the form of television. With people now accessing compelling stories and programs in their living rooms, movie theater owners and film studio executives alike were panicked over whether or not big-screen films would survive. It was time for theaters to distinctly offer something new for moviegoers…like a wider frame than any television in the 1950s could feature.
This is where things like Cinerama came into play, which was a technology utilizing a trio of projectors to show off films on a massive, curved screen. The idea here was to show films in an expansive manner that could wrap around viewers, a concept that would endure through several future big-screen adjustments. Interestingly, the idea of filming movies in this format dated back to the 1927 Abel Gance epic Napoleon, which intended to screen its gigantic finale in a format similar to Cinerama. This historical precedent indicated there was some passion, both from filmmakers and people who watched movies, for this format.
Cinerama did deliver some box office in the 1950s, including Cinerama Holiday, which became the highest-grossing movie of 1955 at the box office. However, it didn’t stick around for long thanks to how costly it was to install these theaters (Cinerama films only played at a select few locations). Certain epics in the 1960s, like The Greatest Story Ever Told and 2001: A Space Odyssey, were still partially shot and presented in the format, while the legacy of the Cinerama format lives on thanks to the iconic Cinerama Dome in Los Angeles (which could still project features in the Cinerama format before its closure in 2020).
Its connections to these classic films and enduring presence through the legacy of the Cinerama Dome clearly demonstrate that Cinerama should not be dismissed as a “fad”. Instead, it’s an important step in the history of theatrical exhibition. It is, unfortunately, also an indicator of the kind of financial and logistical challenges present in trying to incorporate anything new into the theatrical experience. Significantly less ambitious ways of “enhancing” theatrical moviegoing would succumb to the factors that kept Cinerama from ever taking off as a permanent widespread concept.
The Avalanche of Movie Theater Fads
While Cinerama (and fellow ultra-widescreen format of that decade CinemaScope) was a more nuanced variation on how films could be seen theatrically, the 1950s still saw a deluge of “enhancements” to movie theaters that totally qualified as fads. After all, this is the era that saw the first widespread use of 3D for theatrical films, a process that proved initially popular before waning off by the end of the decade. Similarly, at the end of the decade, AromaRama debuted just before the 1960 premiere of the only film to feature the original version of Smell-O-Vision. Both of these systems were meant to provide aromas for viewers that would allow them to tap into whatever the on-screen characters were smelling. They didn’t last long and have only reappeared in other forms as gimmicks for intentionally ridiculous movies, like the John Waters feature Polyester.
AromaRama and Smell-O-Vision were plagued by a problem that hurts all movie theater fads: they’re “solutions” to problems nobody has. There has never been a single soul in the world that remarks “I wish I could smell this scene” when they’re watching The Godfather or Do the Right Thing. It’s just not a thought process that crosses people’s minds. Even movies like Ratatouille which are packed with delectable and lovely-smelling food aren’t going to inspire wishes for odors to get blasted into theatrical screenings of that Brad Bird directorial effort. Part of the fun of movies like Ratatouille is that the images are so evocative that they can conjure up thoughts of aromas in your mind. It’s so much more fun to have that personalized experience of what you think a film’s world must smell like. No soul that would prefer something like Smell-O-Vision to reveal all the funky odors intrusively and definitively from a fictional realm.
These technologies pioneered a pattern of movie theaters, movie studios, and technology companies getting behind systems and “advancements” that didn’t cater to the customer’s demands. Something like AromaRama just sounded good and exciting to a marketing team. Some of these technologies began to fade off as the 1970s began. This was an era when motion pictures, freed from the recently dissolved Hays Code, could tackle provocative material again, which proved even more alluring to general moviegoers than any AromaVision presentation could be. However, some of the action-heavy movies of the 1970s did play in certain locations with Sensurround, a system meant to offer up a more immersive and louder sound experience. A very rough precursor to the kind of sound set-ups that are now common in IMAX auditoriums, this technology would get phased out by the end of the 1970s.
In the 2000s, Movie Theaters Were Invaded By Gimmicks Once More
The 1980s saw multiplexes, theaters housing tons of screens, becoming the default norm for where movies could be seen while that same decade saw IMAX auditoriums really take off in notoriety. As the 20th century drew to a close, it was clear the theatrical experience was once again evolving. This was especially true in the 2000s when feature-length narrative films began screening in the IMAX format. The successful translation of blockbusters like The Dark Knight into IMAX once again got people wondering how the theatrical experience could once again be “enhanced.”
Unsurprisingly, this is also an era where, much like the 1950s, theaters were looking for stability in response to newfound challenges. Instead of just competing with television, though, In December 2005 (just one month after the premiere of Chicken Little, the first major theatrical movie released in digital 3D), Edward Jay Epstein wrote a piece for Slate exploring the variety of ways at-home entertainment was now threatening movie theaters. In fact, Epstein noted that theatrical features were now servicing video games, TV shows, home video properties, and other things accessible in your living room…big screen motion pictures were not the be-all end-all of entertainment. These new “gimmicks” were a way to reverse that trend by providing something you couldn’t get at home.
This isn’t to say James Cameron, Peter Jackson, or other directors were being shady about their passion for things like digital 3D in the late 2000s. But the dedication studios exhibited for digital 3D certainly was motivated by these larger factors, just like the hype around Cinerama and CinemaScope in the 1950s was fueled by a need to challenge television. It wasn’t just those darkened glasses that arose as a notable theatrical fad in the late 2000s, though. In the final year of this decade, the South Korean movie theater chain CJ CGV introduced 4DX into the world. This technology provided moviegoers with seats that moved, movie-appropriate smells filling up their nostrils, the feeling of wind in their hair, and so much more.
Initially restricted to just foreign territories like South America and China, 4DX began making its way to the United States starting in 2014, with many of these experiences being located in Regal Cinemas locations. It’s been nearly a decade since 4DX came to North America and a steady stream of new releases are still converted to play in the format. However, it’s never taken off domestically (over a decade, it’s still only in 57 North American theaters) and has a nascent presence in many key international markets. Though the years and jargon to sell specific fads change, the culprits behind why something like 4DX doesn’t take off are remarkably similar to the elements that led to AromaRoma’s demise. Nobody really asked for the things 4DX offered and the obscene costs of installing it didn’t make it attractive to theaters.
Barco Escape Failed To Take Off
Similarly, Barco Escape also failed to take off after getting introduced in the mid-2010s. A sort of spiritual successor to Cinerama, Barco Escape was a screen format that provided two extra screens (one on each side of the theater) to deliver an “enhanced” image of whatever you were watching. The technology was initially being pushed especially hard by 20th Century Fox on films like The Maze Runner, but it never took off. Theaters didn’t want to spend the cash to install it and filmmakers weren’t interested in utilizing the format. By 2018, Barco Escape was dead.
Really, this piece only scratches the surface of the bizarre and weird movie theater fads that were launched with promises of changing the film industry forever before fading away into obscurity (see also: High Frame Rate projection). While some short-lived stabs at enhancing the theatrical experience, like Cinerama, had much more positive lasting legacies in the world of cinema, most of these fads are just remembered (if they’re remembered at all) for being blatant cash-grabs. The existence of sound or auditorium seating show there are ways to improve movie theaters and there are certainly ways this experience could be further enhanced.
However, such enhancements should come in the form of making big screen viewings more accessible to various marginalized communities (especially disabled people), not bringing back Smell-O-Vision in a sexy edgy format. Tragically, movie theater fads have often demonstrated a shallow understanding of how films operate and what audiences want from them. It’s no wonder things like the Barco Escape have never taken off and are now merely cautionary tales for the next generation of systems attempting to “revolutionize” the theatrical experience.
[ad_2]
Source link
Armessa Movie News